Why are they agressors (they were only in china) despite being sorrounded by foreign military bases in the pacific and...

>Soviets
The Anglo-Polish military alliance was against German aggression, not total aggression. Perhaps if you bothered reading the agreement you would know:
>In case of German aggression against either Poland or France, or both, the two nations would aid each other to the fullest extent."
Secondly, if Japan REALLY was angry and autistic about the Allies having imperialistic dominions in the Pacific, why did they not abide by Article I?
>The high contracting parties agree as between themselves to respect their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular dominions in the region of the Pacific Ocean. If there should develop between any of the high contracting parties a controversy arising out of any Pacific question and involving their said rights, which is not satisfactorily settled by diplomacy and is likely to affect the harmonious accord now happily subsisting between them, they shall invite the other high contracting parties to a joint conference, to which the whole subject will be referred for consideration and adjustment.
So instead of negotiating "I feel threatened, let's discuss the dominion problem" they went "fuck you I invade"?

>implying they would achieve anything with discussion at that time
>brits had an anti-german agression treaty with poland
de facto yes, de jure it was against anyone; france was the one that wasnt obliged to declare war on the soviets

>implying they would achieve anything with discussion at that time
You can't just say "it wouldn't work" without elaborating, the US didn't go insane when the Japs shot down USS Panay and declared war on them. The USA didn't even embargo Japan when they invaded Manchuria with the Mukdin incident, tables were probably still open.
>France was the one that wasn't obligated to declare war on the soviets
and Britain, being cheeky, pulled off the idea that they would declare against Germany, not the Soviets, and if Poland were to be attacked by any other country:
>while in the case of attack by other countries the parties were required to "consult together on measures to be taken in common".
A scummy move but they weren't obligated to declare war on Soviets, then again they did have "Operation Pike" planned. Regardless, the Anglo-Polish treaty as of currently is irrelevant for the case in hand when Japan was given an oppportunity to discuss the dominion question, like it was with the Shandong problem.

Could have something to do with opening dams on populated areas, intentionally sending out baloons filled with bubonic plauge into the countryside, vivisecting Chinese while they were alive, mass rape, mass execution of civilians, etc.

>Rape of Nanking
This is a meme user

Memes aside I like to say that it never happened when I'm playing a game and there are Chinese players on the opposing side. Got like 6 reports in a match once.

Attached: zunkek.png (556x324, 356K)

The Japanese entered the game too late, it was on longer acceptable to the international community to be aggressively establishing colonies.

all of your statements about japan can be refuted by the fact that western powers had nothing to be doing there in the first place they were in control of resources that would benefit japan, an asian power, so japanese "agression" in the pacific and SE asia can be understood and mostly justified, i agree that japan was an agressor in china, but the us had no moral high-ground to impose sanctions upon them, on paper they were agressors but in reality they were just an asian empire bent on driving western imperialists out

>they entered the game too late
they would have never even entered it if western countries hadn't forced themslves into japan

try playing on an american server and saying the h*Locavst never happened

I asked you to elaborate why discussions would not have worked in the case of Japan when the treaties clearly state the powers can hold a joint conference. Your arguments hold no weight until you address why Japan violated:
Kellogg-Briand pact - disputes will not be resolved by war
Four-power treaty - Pacific holdings of the nations is to be respected, but can also be rediscussed and re-negotiated by Article I.
>inb4 they wouldn't have discussed
You still need to elaborate there. The Westerners indeed perhaps shouldn't have been in Asia, but that does not justify Japan's actions.
Japan is hated not only for its aggressive imperialism in China, but also the fact it ignored all of the treaties it signed, much like Germany and committed crimes against humanity such as unit 731 and the Death march

if a so called pact greatly harms your nation economically and politically, and is built upon clearly disatvantaged relationship between parties, then there is no surprise when the affected party brkes them, so know you shall say that specifically the versailles treaty (not reflecting on what followed) ought not to have been broken, but that would in turn mean a disadvantaged germany, as was the colonial grip on japan an unfair deal, so don't act surprised if clearly fascistic parties have taken over foreign policy and the people are sick of hypocrisy that they will evantually brake those comedic treaties to combat that hypocrisy. Concerning the war crimes, I have never denied them and acknowledge that Japan had no business in china as the Westerners had no business in the wholr pacific

now*

>nip imperialism in china bad but anglo and american imperialism all over the pacific is valid and "democratic"
Nobody except Americunt imperialists ever said that.

>if a so called pact greatly harms your nation economically and politically,
How does "disputes should not be resolved by wars" harm your nation economically and politically?
>then there is no surprise when the affected party brkes them
Then why did Japan sign those treaties? Keep in mind Germany had to sign Versailles, Japan wasn't forced by anyone to sign EITHER of those treaties, they consented to them. Why would they sign if they knew it would hold a "grip" on them?
Keep in mind I'm not justifying Westerner imperialism, but Japan would have a much higher "ground" so to speak if they didn't say "yes we promise we will follow these articles.

the japanese were discriminated against, since they signed it foremostly it to disband the alliance with the uk while at the same time having to stop their navy growth, while the us navy was greatly enlarged before the armaments treaty - q clear signof wanting japan to stay a "friendly" nation and promising them china in return, look if was in charge of japan i would have ignored china and focus on getting the us and britain out (which would be very hard of course, probably impossible but would in turn not give japan a status of agressor according to all normal people), it was all a resource and trade war in the end

a*

I’m usually against ad hom, but you’re a pathetic apologist for one of the most brutal and unintelligently run empires of all time.

Japanese foreign policy and military policy was a never ending shitshow. even if they had achieved all of their objectives it wouldn’t have stopped the ultranationalistic autism that led them to ruin

>they signed it foremostly it to disband the alliance with the uk
It was more of whether or not to extend the Alliance, which the USA did its best to cockblock by threatening Britain more than Japan, secondly the USA would later consent to Japan's demands and expand the ratio from 5:5:3 to 5:5:3.5, as the Japanese themselves demanded.
>while the us navy was greatly enlarged before the armaments treaty
This is sort of hard to say, if you mean the 5:5:3 ratio, then yes, but regards to US naval growth then the USA actually willingly sunk 800,000 tons of their own shipping as a sign of "good faith" during the Naval arms conference.
>turn not give japan a status of agressor according to all normal people)
This doesn't really work in the case of again, if we follow the treaties Japan signed. The Four-power treaty, while you may say have disadvantaged Japan (something they consented to anyway), it would not make Japan be the "non-aggressor", that is if we are assuming you are to engage in the same military invasions as Japan had initially done. Unless you would do something more "diplomatic" and follow Article I, which would be significantly more sensible. If you were to do it via negotiation then yes perhaps Japan would seem more as a liberator rather than an invader to some nations. We must also keep in mind Japan violated the Kellogg-Briand pact when invading the Western dominions, as it signed the treaty claiming it would first negotiate rather than invade, which would make Japan seem as an aggressor (that is, again, if we're assuming this is a military invasion we're following)
> it was all a resource and trade war in the end
Yeah I can see that as a reasonable point, one of the arguments is that Japan invaded Manchuria in the first place was because of how badly it was affected by the Great Depression, however this is China we're talking about, of course, and not the Western dominions.

Although I don't remember exactly about the 5:5:3.5 ratio, I think I'm remembering it wrong,

There we go found the passage. Japan WILLINGLY accepted the Naval arms conference of a 5:5:3 ration, they were stubborn as fuck for a 5:5:3.5. However, after negotiations with the USA, the USA offered Japan (under Article 19) to have Military fortifications in the pacific islands, something that Japan gladly accepted in return for a smaller ratio of 5:5:3 rather than 5:5:3.5. So, again, Japan itself accepted these terms in return for a smaller ratio they get to have military fortifications and bases in pacific islands.

>The pact, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it, are unlawful.
so the western powers should have left the colonies as soon as they signed the pact because of "acquisition by military force", but didnt - pure hypocrisy which if a relatively small country like japan would not sign, it would then be subjected to a smear campaign and possibly embargo by western powers

a smaller navy is better than no navy

>so the western powers should have left the colonies as soon as they signed the pact because of "acquisition by military force",
You seem to misunderstand the treaty entirely:
>The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that
they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it,
as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
>The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts
of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall
never be sought except by pacific means.
>The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in
accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between
them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at
Washington.
It is implying the use of force to ANNEX territories among the people who SIGNED (although the wording leaves room for interpretation) the treaty is to be forbidden and should be engaged via means of "pacific means", i.e negotiation. Secondly from what I've gathered the treaty is not "retroactive", therefore your point is moot.

Hell nowhere in the treaty does it say that it is retroactive, instead that it takes effect after the treaty is signed, you may argue this is "them protecting their dominions", but Japan shouldn't have signed the treaty then, since they knew what they were going with:
>The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington

>treaty is not retroactive
then it has no foundation to stand on a moral high-ground,
the treaty didnt even prevent military action, just war declarations and annexations so it was bullshit beraucracy to begin with,
its nice owning half the world like the brits and then signing a treaty (politically forced) that prevents anyone dumb enough challenging that ownership that was established BY FORCE

the problem is that the countries were implied to sign since it was convenient and since no one, especially japan ever thought about the rise of hitler and fascism and a possible destruction of the british and other colonies, it was just a "by the way" treaty for japan, like the german-polish pact

well of course the german-polish pact came after hitlers rise but still -- convenience

>USA actually willingly sunk 800,000 tons of their own shipping as a sign of "good faith" during the Naval arms conference.
I'm having trouble finding a source for this.

>to stand on a moral high-ground,
I never said it had a moral high-ground, trying to have a "moral high-ground" in politics will lead you to the tragic fate of Wilson.
>the treaty didnt even prevent military action, just war declarations and annexations so it was bullshit beraucracy to begin with,
If you knew anything about foreign policy in the interwar period, it's because there was this stupid Wilsonian ideal that treaties can be upheld simply via "moral obligations", in that the countries will naturally uphold the signed treaties without the use of military force, hence the failure to "prevent military action".
>its nice owning half the world like the brits and then signing a treaty (politically forced) that prevents anyone dumb enough challenging that ownership that was established BY FORCE
It is, indeed, that's politics for you. Countries look after their own self-interest, and countries won't give a fuck if Japan needs resources in their dominions, because that would be not in their national interest, Japan's problems aren't Britain's problems, "first come first serve", yes this was a dickish move to do, especially among westerners, but it doesn't justify Japan's invasion of said dominions and pulling shit like the Bataan death march.

>no one, especially japan ever thought about the rise of hitler and fascism and a possible destruction of the british and other colonies, it was just a "by the way" treaty for japan,
It doesn't matter, they would still be painted as the aggressor as they violated the treaty they signed, which is my whole point.

Duroselle, Jean Baptiste. "From Wilson to Roosevelt : Foreign Policy of the United States, 1931-1945" (Chatto, 1964), p. 156.

As some fags like to say "Two wrongs don't make a right"

Why are they agressors (they were only in china south sea) despite being sorrounded by foreign military bases in the pacific and east asian coast? Why is chink development in china south sea bad but anglo and american imperialism all over the pacific is valid and "democratic"?
Times change weeb

Wait fuck should be "1913-1945", not 1931.

i hate anime with a passion

>they would still be painted as the aggressor
if they lost, which they did
>Bataan death march
well yeah the japanese were known for these things, but still western politics was always hypocritical, not only to japan but to others as well and japnese "agression" towards america and britain is an understandable occurence despite what some senile officials may have signed

>if they lost, which they did
Yes, good thing history doesn't actually meddle in "ifs", aside from a few exception. They lost, they were the aggressors not only in China, but in the Pacific for the violation of the recognition of pacific holdings, refusal to follow Article I, refusal to follow Kellogg-Briand pact, and of course war crimes, shouldn't have signed them if they wanted to say "well we weren't legally obligated to forrow them".
> japnese "agression" towards america and britain is an understandable occurence despite what some senile officials may have signed
Whether it was "understandable" is something I do not read on and may be up for debate. OP's question was - "why is Japan painted as an evil aggressor outside of China's invasion"? The arguments presented showcase their violation of the upholding of specific dominions by certain countries and refusal to negotiate but instead engage in war, which was supposed to be "outlawed". And I doubt anyone seriously defends Western imperialism aside from perhaps a Brit who wants the empire to return.
Japan was the aggressor, and will be seen as the aggressor, due to the statements I have made previously throughout this entire thread.

japan was the agressor in china of course, but any colony that was fought for cannot be deemed a war of agression since fighting the real agressor is not a war of agression but at best a war of liberation and at worst a war of economic and political interests, the destruction of western colonies in asia by any means either military or diplomatic is above all arbitrary treaties signed by changing ministers and changing governments,

war is not black and white

>war is not black and white
Never said it was, lad. I literally said Britain had dominions in the pacific because it was in their national interest and didn't give a fuck about Japan, I literally said being "Moral" is a death-sentence in politics.
>since fighting the real agressor is not a war of agression but at best a war of liberation and at worst a war of economic and political interests
That's a bit of an extreme statement, Japan's still the aggressor, though. Whether you see this as a war of liberation is irrelevant to what every other scholar and politician thinks. You're the equivalent of a Neo-Nazi claiming the Germans were liberating Europe from Judeo-Bolshevik influence or something like that. Perhaps you should write a paper for a peer-reviewed journal on how Japan was not the aggressor and see how that turns out? I've shown the case in point Japan can be considered the aggressor, this is probably my final (you) to you.

>breaking an almost random and old treaty gives you complete agressor status
you are bureaucratically correct, in the big picture and higher morality you are wrong

>breaking an almost random and old treaty gives you complete agressor status
>old treaty
>a treaty that is less than 20 years old is "random and old"
>The four-power treaty, which was part of one the largest treaties signed in the 1920s is "random"
>The Kellogg-Briand pact which was signed by over 30 countries in the world is "random"
>big picture
>wrong
Umm, no sweetie.
>The "elite reality", as invoked by the Minister of Education, lacked international credibility in the face of the rejection of imperialism by international public opinion.
My genuine, final (you) to you. This thread lasted way too long and I think I was just being b8d this whole time.

>a treaty that is less than 20 years old is "random and old"
>The four-power treaty, which was part of one the largest treaties signed in the 1920s is "random"
>The Kellogg-Briand pact which was signed by over 30 countries in the world is "random"
of course it is random because no one actually abided by signed rules and found ways to circumvent its obligations so yeah random or better yet insignificant

>its ok when anglos and americans violently take over the philipines, indonesia, chinese coastal cities, micronesia, indochina but god forbid japan begomes fashy and attacks imperialists' colonies that encircle them
Except wh*toids weren't expanding their holdings anymore.

Hell, you mentioned the United States, which literally gave Philippines its independence in 1935 and with a 10 year codevelopment project (which Japan ruined, btw) for full independence in 1946, because Americreaturas realized Capital domination amongst friendly governments > Eurofaggot Imperialism.

Attached: Inauguration of Commonwealth Nov 15, 1935.jpg (500x347, 31K)

>gave Philippines its independence in 1935
puppet states are not independent